4th Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure, and the 9th Amendment which clearly says that just because a set of rights are enumerated doesn't mean those are the only ones you have, and the 10th Amendment which says that the only powers the Federal government has are those delegated to it, and that all others are reserved to the States (where not prohibited) or the People.

So, the real question which you should have asked is where in the Constitution was the government given the power to snoop through all your crap in the first place.

The problem is that even though they support Freedom and Liberty they don't support Liberalism. They're against big government, heavy taxes and heavy regulation. They tend to be individualists and not collectivists, ergo they are right wing extremists (or something).

This right here.

What do you mean "become"? He's always struck me as far more motivated by anti-US hate than any desire for openness and such. His 'releases' and such seemed to target the US far more than anyone else as if no other country has secrets far more terrible to expose. They however get ignored because... well... I don't know just because?

I would be very hard to convince me that he's never been handed leaks from China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela or any of a number of places and yet (so far as I know) he/wikileaks has never released any significant material from any such place and certainly never made a multi-month big deal of them.

I suppose there is that. Of course, what bothers me more is the retardation of game design. Since everything is developed for consoles and console players we end up with basically the same games over and over again just with slightly different characters and tweaked story lines.

In the end, it is QTEs and chest high walls as far as the eye can see with only a rare exception.

This right here is one of the saddest things of the last 15 years or so. How much has gaming been held back and stunted by this one fact. :(

So, basically you're saying that you dislike US foreign policy post 9/11 (I don't care for it either) but the biggest thing that seems to get on your tits is that the US isn't Europe.

Fair sure the US is quite happy not being Europe.

From my perspective the US has elected Presidents somewhere between very bad to worse four times now. Not sure what to make of that really.

Matter of fact, you're right. There is little point in banning things vice actions. In generally it matters not what I own it matters what I do with it.

One would have to see the prosecution of those who merely own something, vice those who do something bad with what they own, as a good thing to see that as an advantage. Unsurprisingly, I don't see that as a good thing.

I do not know. I also don't find the question particularly useful or interesting. A more useful or interesting question would be what was the impact on over all crime. I've never understood the desire to treat gun crime as special in these things. As if a person assaulted or murdered with a gun is more harmed than one assaulted or murdered with a lead pipe or knife.

If gun crime did go down but overall crime went up is that a victory or a defeat? This also leaves aside questions of the right of self defense and the right to own the tools to exercise that right.

Which clearly is a lie, since they passed strict gun control down there in Oz and all the guns disappeared. What? Oh, only the law abiding people's guns went away? Nuts.

I'm not sure why this is the case. Are you saying that since such a plan makes it theoretically more expensive to go for routine checkups and what not that people wouldn't do so and therefore would be less healthy? I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that even high deductible plans usually cover such routine things as it is in their best interest to do so.

Well, bully for you that wasn't the deal when you were hired. If situations change and you don't like it you're free to go somewhere else, no?

A high deductible plan is ideal for those who are capable of planning for the future and with generally good health. It isn't ideal for those who are incapable of planning for the future or have health issues which means they are likely to be using their insurance at a greater rate. This is rather simple logic.

A high deductible plan is good if you're in reasonably good health and can plan and save like an adult. If on the other hand you want to make sure that others will take care of you then not so much.

There was once a time when health insurance was exactly that, insurance. It was there to cover those things that were beyond the average person's ability to pay in a reasonable period of time. Just like home and car insurance. Over time it's been morphed into something that's supposed to pay for everything from the sniffles to major heart surgery to mental issues and anything else people want. Then they're shocked when it costs a bloody fortune.

On top of that why does your employer owe you health insurance in the first place? That also used to be something that was a fringe benefit that people then started to expect and demand like it was owed to them.

It's hardly surprising though. The kind of people who are so concerned with what you may own, vice what you do with it, also tend to be kind of people who would want to regulate everything else about what you own and don't own. The overlap is hardly surprising.

Yeah, but you're forgetting the selection bias of the media who generally whole heartily believe in anthropocentric global warming. They are far less likely to put a farmer on that says that climate change might be happening but he doesn't believe humans are the cause.

Neither given the implication that Tea Party members would somehow be in favor of intrusive government action in other areas, which they are not in general.

Doubly so if the allusion was towards TSA 'enhanced' stuff, support of which would seem to be nigh incompatible with Tea Party philosophy.